HAWAIIAN  INDEPENDENCE- NOT  “ANNEXATION,” 
OUR  POLICY. 


“  ANNEXATION  ”  ENDANGERS  DOMESTIC  Jl’GAR. 


It  is  conceded  that  the  “  annexation  ”  of  the  Hawaiian  Is¬ 
lands  is  not  a  new  “scheme,”  but  it  is  asserted  that  it  is  the 
necessary  and  fitting  sequel  to  our  relations  with  Hawaii  for 
three-quarters  of  a  century.  The  writer  controverts  this  as 
an  erroneous  inference.  We  insist  that  the  independence  of 
those  Islands,  their  freedom  from  all  foreign  control  or  dom¬ 
ination  (that  of  the  United  States  included)  has  been  our 
policy  ;  that  the  “  scheme  ’  ’  of  “  annexation  ”  without  the  con¬ 
sent  of  the  people  and  the  rightful  rulers  of  Hawaii  was  not,  until 
1893,  entertained  for  a  moment  by  the  United  States.  This 
assertion — which  amounts  to  joining  issue  with  the  President, 
is  not  overcome  by  the  fact  that  the  Hawaiian  government 
has  sought  on  at  least  two  occasions  to  cede  the  Islands  to  the 
United  States  when  they  were  threatened  internally,  as  in 
1854  (See  House  Ex.  Doc.  1,  part  1,  53d,  3d,  pp.  106,  124,  127), 
or  externally  as  in  1851  (See  same  Doc.,  pp.  89,  92,  102),  but 
that  goes  very  far  from  proving  the  President’s  position  to  be 
correct  !  In  fact  the  one  was  but  a  conditional  cession  and 
withdrawn  or  allowed  to  lapse  by  Hawaii,  p.  132,  and  in  the 
latter  case  Secretary  Webster  ordered  the  deed  of  cession  re¬ 
amed.  (See  same  Doc.,  p.  102.) 

These  facts  are  a  matter  of  record,  there  is  no  escape  from 
.hem,  and  they  tend  to  prove  the  very  reverse  of  the  President’s 
assumption  !  In  1851,  when  Secretary  Webster  ordered  the 
ession  of  the  Islands  to  the  United  States,  returned,  he  said — 

“You  will  see  by  my  official  letter  *  *  *  the  disposi- 

■*  tion  of  the  United  States  is  to  maintain  its  independence.  Be- 
“  yond  that  you  will  not  proceed.  The  act  of  contingent  or  con- 
“  ditional  surrender  (of  the  Islands  to  the  United  States)  which 
r  you  mention  in  your  letter  as  having  been  placed  in  your 
‘  hands,  you  will  please  to  return  to  the  Hawaiian  government.” 
Put  over  and  beyond  that,  there  is  ample  evidence  in  the 
record  to  show  that  the  United  States  always  insisted  on  the 
independence  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  and  has  not  coveted 


2 

or  looked  with  favor  on  “annexation,”  save  and  except  in 
some  extremity,  to  prevent  the  Islands  falling  to  another 
power,  of  which  there  is  not  now  a  pretense  of  the  remotest 
danger.  Neither  the  President  nor  Secretary  Sherman  lends 
that  idea  the  least  recognition.  In  fact,  Secretary  Sherman  says 
that  the  present  governmentin  Hawaii  is  “  firmly  established.” 
These  things  being  true,  where  is  the  necessity  of  “  annexa¬ 
tion  ”  ?  From  external  danger  the  United  States  has  long 
guaranteed  the  independence  of  the  Islands,  and  from  inter¬ 
nal  disorder  we  may  not  rightfully  intervene. 

As  early  as  December  31,  1842,  President  Tyler  sent  to  Con¬ 
gress,  correspondence  had  between  certain  “agents”  of 
Hawaii  and  our  Secretary  of  State  with  a  message  recom¬ 
mending  an  appropriation  for  our  Consul  at  Honolulu.  He 
therein  assumed  that  it  would  be  in  conformity  with  the  wishes 
of  our  government  and  our  people  that  the  Hawaiian  com¬ 
munity —  “should  be  respected  and  all  its  rights  strictly  and 
“  conscientiously  regarded  *  *  *  While  its  nearer  approach 
“  to  this  continent  and  the  intercourse  which  American  vessels 
“  have  with  the  Islands  could  not  but  create  dissatisfaction 
“  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  any  attempt  by  another 
“  power  (should  such  an  attempt  be  threatened  or  feared)  to 
“  take  possession  of  the  Islands,  colonize  them  and  subvert  ; 
“  the  native  government  !  *  *  *  it  is  deemed  not  unfit 

“  to  make  the  declaration  that  our  government  seeks  no  peculiar 
“  advantages ,  no  exclusive  control  over  the  Hawaiian  govern- 
“  ment,  but  is  content  with  its  independent  existence  and 
“  anxiously  wishes  for  its  security  and  prosperity.  Its  for- 
“  bearance  in  this  respect  under  the  circumstances  of  its  very 
“  large  intercourse  with  the  Islands  would  gratify  this  govern- 
“  ment  (should  events  hereafter  arise  to  require  it)  in  making 
“  a  decided  remonstrance  against  the  adoption  of  an  opposite 
“  policy  by  any  other  power.” — (Cong.  Globe, 2 7th,  3d,  p.  103.) 

Who  can  possibly  predicate  the  present  scheme  of  “  annex¬ 
ation  ”  upon  such  sentiments  as  these,  wherein  the  United 
States  is  made  to  seek  no  exclusive  control,  no  peculiar 
advantages,  being  fully  and  conscientiously  content  with  the 
independence  of  those  Islands;  the  people  thereof  to  be  free 
and  independent  of  all  foreign  control  or  domination  !  And 
what  followed  this?  In  1843  Mr.  Webster,  as  Secretary  of 
State,  secured  from  England  and  France  the  signatures  of 
their  representatives  to  a  treaty,  agreement  or  protocol  wherein 
they  expressly  relinquished  all  claim  to  the  control,  seizure, 
or  domination  of  the  Sandwich  Islands,  from  which  it  is  to  be 
fairly  implied  that  the  United  States  would  pursue  a  like  policy. 

Again,  and  on  the  15th  of  March,  1843,  Mr.  Webster  as 


3 


Secretary  of  State  said — in  a  communication  to  Mr.  Brown, 
our  Commissioner  at  Honolulu — “We  seek  no  control  over 
“  the  Hawaiian  government  nor  any  undue  influence  what- 
“  ever.  Our  only  wish  is  that  the  integrity  and  independence 
“  of  the  Hawaiian  territory  may  be  scrupulously  maintained  *  *.” 

December,  1842,  Mr.  Webster,  as  Secretary  of  State,  had 
said  that  the  President  was  quite  willing  to  declare  as  the 
sense  of  the  United  States,  that — “  no  power  ought  either  to 
“  take  possession  of  the  Sandwich  Islands  as  a  conquest  or 
“  for  the  purpose  of  colonization  and  that  no  power  ought  to 
“seek  any  undue  control  over  the  existing  government  *  *.” 

“  No  power  ”  embraces  the  United  States  as  well  as  other  na¬ 
tions.  Our  continuous  policy  toward  the  Hawaiian  Islands, 
starting  with  their  recognition,  has  been  an  insistence  on  their 
neutrality;  their  independence  or  freedom  from  all  foreign 
control. 

In  President  Taylor’s  message  of  December  4,  1849,  he  al¬ 
luded  to  the  Sandwich  Islands,  saying — “  We  desire  that  the 
“  Islands  may  maintain  their  independence ,  and  that  other  na¬ 
tions  shall  concur  with  us  in  this  sentiment.”  And  very 
properly  he  added  that  we  could  in  no  event  be  indifferent  to 
their  passing  under  the  dominion  of  any  other  power. 

Mr.  Clayton,  our  Secretary  of  State,  said  to  Mr.  Rives,  our 
Minister  to  France,  July  5,  1850 — “We  desire  that  those 
“Islands  (Hawaiian)  should  maintain  their  independence.  We 
“believe  that  their  existing  government  is  competent  to  dis- 
“  charge  the  duties  of  a  sovereign  state,”  and  he  expressed  the 
hope  that  the  then  existing  trouble  or  dispute  between  France 
and  the  Hawaiian  Islands  would  come  to  speedy  and  satisfac¬ 
tory  termination,  but  if  not,  that  France  be  informed  that  the 
United  States  could  not  allow  the  Islands — “to  pass  under  the 
“dominion  or  exclusive  control  of  any  other  power.”  And 
he  added — what  is  very  pertinent  just  now — “we  (i.  e.,  the 
“United  States)  do  not  ourselves  covet  sovereignty  over  them. 
“  We  would  be  content  that  they  should  remain  under  their 
“  present  rulers  *  * 

In  Mr.  Webster’s  letter  to  Mr.  Rives  of  June  19,  1851, 
he  says —  *  *  *  “If  you  should  not  already  have 
“  made  the  French  government  acquainted  with  the  interest 
“  we  feel  in  the  independence  of  the  (Hawaiian)  Islands, 
“you  will  lose  no  time  in  taking  that  course.”  The  Secre¬ 
tary  asserted  that  the  action  of  the  French  Admiral  in  land¬ 
ing  troops  and  taking  possession  of  the  government  buildings 
in  1849,  was  incompatible  with  any  just  regard  for  the  Hawai¬ 
ian  government  as  an  independent  state.  Again  in  his  letter  of 
July  14,  1851,  to  Mr.  Severance,  our  Commissioner  at  Hono- 


4 


lulu,  Mr.  Webster  still  more  clearly  outlined  our  policy  toward 
the  Hawaiian  Islands,  and  it  would  seem  to  most  effectually 
dispose  of  the  modern  assumption  of  the  Hawaiian  sugar 
lobby  at  Washington  that  the  United  States  has  for  years  fa¬ 
vored  “  annexation.”  In  that  letter  Mr.  Webster,  after  point¬ 
ing  out  that  theUniied  States  were  the  first  to  acknowledge 
the  national  existence  of  the  Hawaiian  government  and  to 
treat  it  as  an  independent  state,  says — “  In  acknowledging 
“  the  independence  of  the  Islands  and  of  the  government  estab¬ 
lished  over  them,  it  (i.  e.,  the  United  States)  was  not  seeking 
“  to  promote  any  peculiar  object  of  its  own.  What  it  did,  and  all 
“  that  it  did  was  done  openly  in  the  face  of  day,  in  entire  good 
“  faith,  and  known  to  all  nations.  *  *  *  This  government 

“still  desires  to  see  the  nationality  of  the  Hawaiian  govern- 
“ment  maintained,  its  independent  administration  of  public 
“  affairs  respected  and  its  prosperity  and  reputation  increased. 
“But  while  thus  indisposed  to  exercise  any  sinister  influence 
“  itself  over  the  councils  of  Hawaii,  or  to  overawe  the  proceed- 
“  ings  of  its  government  by  the  menace  or  the  actual  application  of 
“  superior  military  force ,  it  expects  to  see  other  powerful  na- 
“  tions  act  in  the  same  manner  ” ! 

Not  only  has  the  independence  of  the  Islands  been  our  policy; 
not  only  was  the  United  States  to  exercise  no  sinister  influence 
over  them  ;  but  Mr.  Webster  especially  states  that  we  were 
not  to — “  overawe  the  proceedings  of  its  (lawful)  government 
“  by  the  menace  or  the  actual  application  of  superior  military 
“  force.” 

And  yet  that  is  precisely  what  the  oligarchy  and  Stevens  suc¬ 
ceeded  in  using  onr  flag  and  forces  to  accomplish  in  January, 
1893. 

Mr.  Webster  proceeded  to  state — “The  United  States  ex- 
“  pects  to  see  other  nations  act  in  the  same  spirit.  *  *  * 

“  Our  policy  is,  that  while  the  Government  of  the  United 
“  States,  itself  faithful  to  its  original  assurance,  scrupulously 
“  regards  the  independence  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  it  can 
“  never  consent  to  see  those  Islands  taken  possession  of  by 
“  either  of  the  great  commercial  powers  of  Europe.  *  *  *  ” 

Can  there  be  any  quibble — diplomatic  or  otherwise,  made 
over  this  language?  The  independence  of  the  Hawaiian 
Islands;  no  interference — save  protection  by  the  United 
States  to  preserve  that  independence.  The  very  antipodes  of 
“  annexation.”  And  Mr.  Webster  further  said  that  he  had 
the  assurance  of  the  French  Minister  that  France  had — “  no 
“  purpose  whatever  of  taking  possession  of  the  Islands. 
*  *  *”  And  this  is  proven  by  the  fact  that  when  the  French 

took  possession  of  the  Hawaiian  government  building,  etc., 


5 


August  25,  1849,  it  carefully  abstained  from  taking  down  the 
Hawaiian  flag.  France,  even  at  that  early  period,  did  not 
look  to  an  occupation  of  the  Islands.  She  simply  wanted 
reparation  for  alleged  treaty  infractions  by  Hawaii.  (House 
Ex.  Doc.  1,  part  1,  53d,  3d,  pp.  13-75-) 

In  his  message  of  December  2,  1851,  President  Fillmore 
alluded  to  the  difference  which  had,  since  1849,  been  pending 
between  the  French  and  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  expressing 
the  hope  that  they  would  “be  peaceably  adjusted,  so  as  to 
“secure  the  independence  of  those  islands.”  He  pointed  out 
that  we  had  been  first  10  acknowledge  the  independence  of 
the  Sandwich  Islands,  influenced  by  their  importance  as  a 
place  of  refuge  and  refreshment  for  our  vessels,  and  influenced 
by  a  desire  that  the  islands  “should  not  pass  under  the  con- 
“  trol  of  any  great  maritime  State,  but  should  remain  in  an 
“  independent  condition  and  so  be  accessible  and  useful  to  the 
“  commerce  of  all  nations .” 

We  are  unable  to  see  any  “  annexation  ”  in  that! 

We  are  aware  that  in  1854  when  Mr.  Marcy  was  Secretary 
of  State  and  when  the  internal  dissensions  in  the  Hawaiian 
Islands  threatened  a  collapse  of  the  government,  that  the  Sec¬ 
retary  of  State  listened  to  a  proposition  of  “annexation” 
proceeding  from  the  lawful  ruling  King  and  his  people.  (House 
Ex.  Doc.  1,  part  1,  pp.  121-133.  53d  -3d-) 

But  all  the  Secretary  of  State  then  said  was  that  it  was — “  not 
“  the  policy  of  the  Uni  ed  States  to  accelerate  ”  annexation, 
but  that  if  it  became  “unavoidable”  the  United  States 
would  much  prefer  to  acquire  the  sovereignty  of  the  Islands 
for  the  United  States  than  see  them  transferred  to  any  other 
power.  “Annexation”  at  that  time  was  proposed  by  the 
people  of  the  Islands  and  the  King  was  disposed  to  concur. 
Certain  Americans  were  just  as  selfishly  impatient  then — 
forty-three  years  ago,  as  they  are  now!  The  idea  expressed 
in  the  Gregg-Marcy  treaty  was,  that  the  Islands  be  admitted 
as  a  State ,  and  that  $300,000  a  year  be  paid  by  the  United 
States  to  be  divided  between  the  King,  chiefs  and  his  suc¬ 
cessors  to  the  throne.  Objection  was  then  made  to  Hawaii 
coming  in  as  a  State  and  also  to  the  amount  of  the  annuity; 
$100,000  was  thought  sufficient.  An  important  feature  run¬ 
ning  through  all  the  Secretary’s  dispatches  was  that  in  any 
treaty  of  “annexation”  the  people  should  be  consulted,  as 
well  as  the  rulers!  In  his  dispatch  of  January  31,  1855,  the 
Secretary  said — 

“If  the  Hawaiian  government  and  people  become  con¬ 
vinced  of  the  necessity  of  such  a  change  (i.  e.,  annexation) 
“it  is  probable  that  they  will,  if  left  to  their  own  choice ,  look 


6 


“  to  the  United  States  as  the  country  to  which  they  would 
“  wish  to  be  annexed.” 

That  was  a  very  different  matter  than  taking  a  cession 
from  an  oligarchy  that  acquired  possession  by  deception  and 
the  use  of  our  flag  and  forces. 

In  his  letters  to  Mr.  Comly  in  1881,  Mr.  Blaine  just  as 
firmly  states  our  policy  toward  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  as  had 
his  predecessors  in  office  and  our  Presidents.  For  instance, 
writing  November  19,  1881,  he  says — “The  government  of 
“  the  United  States  has,  with  unvarying  consistency  mani- 
“  fested  respect  for  the  independence  of  the  Hawaiian  Kingdom 
“  and  an  earnest  desire  for  the  welfare  of  its  people.  *  *  * 
“  The  government  of  the  United  States  has  always  avowed 
“and  now  repeats,  that  under  no  circumstances,  will  it 
“permit  the  transfer  of  the  territory  or  sovereignty  of  these 
“Islands  to  any  of  the  great  European  powers.” 

That  was  but  a  repetition  of  what  had  been  stated  many 
times  over  by  our  government.  The  independence  of  the 
Islands;  no  transfer  of  them  to  a  foreign  power.  “Annexa¬ 
tion  ”  as  now  tendered  to  the  United  States  would  be  incon¬ 
sistent  with  all  our  professions.  The  independence  of  the 
Islands  was  and  is  our  strongest  argument  to  meet  foreign 
domination  and  of  course  that  forbids  “annexation.” 

December  1,  1881,  Mr.  Blaine  again  says  to  Mr.  Comly — 

“  The  material  possession  of  Hawaii  is  not  desired  by  the  United 
“  States  any  more  than  was  that  of  Cuba,  but  under  no  cir- 
“  cumstances  can  the  United  States  permit  any  change  in  the 
“  territorial  control  of  either  which  would  cut  it  adrift  from 
“  the  American  system,  etc.” 

The  independence  of  Hawaii  and  of  Cuba  are  very  different 
from  the  jingo  “  annexation  ”  scheme.  And  in  the  same  let¬ 
ter  Mr.  Blaine  says — 

“The  United  States  firmly  believes  that  the  position  of  the 
“  Hawaiian  Islands,  as  the  key  to  the  domination  of  the 
“American  Pacific,  demands  their  benevolent  neutrality ,  to 
“which  end  the  United  States  will  earnestly  co-operate  with 
“  the  native  government.” 

And  then  he  said — and  this  is  about  all  the  jingoes  have  to 
rely  upon  ;  that — “if  through  any  cause  the  maintenance  of 
“  such  a  position  of  benevolent  neutrality,  should  be  found  by 
“Hawaii  to  be  impracticable ,  this  government  would  then 
“unhesitatingly  meet  the  altered  situation  by  seeking  an 
“  avowedly  American  solution  for  the  grave  issues  presented.” 

It  has  been  the  serious  effort  of  the  Hawaiian  “  Sugar 
Trust”  and  its  diplomatic  and  other  agents  to  so  manipulate 
matters — “bring  things  to  a  smash”  (See  House  Ex.  Doc.  1, 


7 


part  i,  p.  737)  as  to  seem  to  bring  their  tottering  oligarchy 
within  the  range  of  this  undefined  policy  of  Mr.  Blaine.  They 
have  tried  to  get  into  a  row  with  Japan  in  order  to  make 
benevolent  neutrality  “impracticable”  and  “annexation” 
thereby  necessary  and  “unavoidable,”  but  they  have  failed 
in  this.  There  has  never  been — for  a  moment,  any  serious 
pretense  that  the  independence  or  “neutrality”  of  the 
Hawaiian  Islands  was  in  peril  or  in  any  way  menaced  !  The 
only  thing  menaced  is  the  oligarchy !  The  despotism  of  a 
few  who — under  the  cloak  of  “peaceable”  citizens,  con¬ 
spired  to  obtain  the  use  of  our  flag  and  our  troops  to  overawe 
a  lawful  ruler  and  induce  her  to  surrender — as  she  supposed, 
to  the  United  States,  with  the  promise  that  we  would  arbi¬ 
trate  the  matter  !  If  the  independence  of  the  Islands  has 
come  to  be  “  impracticable,”  it  must  have  been  rendered  so 
by  the  antics  of  the  oligarchy  to  create  the  conditions ,  which 
only  proves  how  unworthy  it  is  of  confidence,  support  and 
trust,  and  what  a  mistake  it  was  to  overthrow  the  lawful 
ruler  in  1893. 

In  1887,  Secretary  Bayard  said  to  our  Minister  Merrill : 
“As  is  well  known,  no  intent  is  cherished  nor  policy  enter- 
“  tained  by  the  United  States  which  is  otherwise  than  friendly 
“  to  the  autonomical  control  and  independence  of  Hawaii.” 

Beyond  all  question,  our  insistence  on  the  independence  of 
the  Hawaiian  group  has  been  continuous,  honest  and  honor¬ 
able.  It  has  not  embraced  the  art  of  the  conspirator,  nor 
the  “diplomacy”  of  the  Hawaiian  “Sugar  Trust.”  That 
policy  does  not  absolve  the  United  States  from  pursuing  the 
same  course  which  we  have  forced  upon  foreign  nations.  We 
did  not  demand  the  independence  of  those  Islands  in  order  to 
take  them  ourselves  !  Nor  should  we  “annex”  them  simply 
because  a  few  selfish  sugar  planters  may  have  created  conditions 
which  they  may  not  be  able  to  maintain  or  control  and  which 
are  over  and  beyond  the  neutrality  and  the  independence  of 
the  Islands. 

This  “  annexation  ”  boil  on  the  body  politic  of  the  United 
States  appears  to  break  out  at  intervals.  It  seems  to  lie  dor¬ 
mant  at  times  as  if  germinating  and  gathering  pus.  Thirty-one 
years  ago  there  was  a  violent  “  annexation  ”  eruption  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  when  the  “  Foreign  Relations  ” 
Committee  reported  a  bill  to  the  effect,  that  whenever  Great 
Britain  and  the  several  provinces  composing  Canada  should 
accept  “annexation”  the  President  should  declare  by 
proclamation  that  Nova  Scotia,  New  Brunswick,  Lower  and 
Upper  Canada,  Selkirk,  Saskatchewan  and  Columbia,  should 
be  admitted  into  the  United  States  as  States  or  Territories  ! 


That  was  “  annexation  ’ ’  by  the  wholesale,  and  yet  there  was 
some  little  sense  in  it  compared  with  this  Hawaiian  “  scheme  ” 
because  Canada  is  valuable  coterminous  territory.  The  only 
wonder,  however,  is  that  the  jingoes  didn’t  suggest  the  “  an¬ 
nexation  ”  of  the  whole  of  Europe  and  part  of  Asia!  England 
has  already  annexed  Boston  and  the  suburbs,  nearly  all  of 
Newport  and  Bar  Harbor,  the  best  part  of  Washington,  all 
of  Fifth  Avenue  and  outlying  districts  on  Long  Island  and 
well  up  the  Hudson.  Over  this  “  annexed  ”  territory  British 
sentiment  in  certain  circles  is  supreme.  The  British  have  also 
annexed  scores  and  hundreds  of  the  loveliest  American 
heiresses  to  replenish  depleted  bank  accounts.  In  fact,  “  an¬ 
nexation”  is  a  British  idea  !  England  has  annexed  too  much  ! 
Her  West  India  Islands  are  to-day  sending  up  a  “  reciprocity  ” 
appeal  to  us.  Their  condition  is  deplorable. 

A  leading  Western  journal  was  correct  when  it  said  that — 
“  the  President  will  hardly  be  able  to  show  that  during  all 
“this  time  eventual  annexation  has  been  regarded  as  a 
“necessary  outcome  of  our  relations.  The  fact  is  that  the 
“development  of  annexation  sentiment  to  any  extent  is  of 
“comparatively  recent  date.  It  was  started  and  cultivated  in 
“  Hawaii  by  the  men  who  overthrew  the  monarchy  and  estab- 
“  lished  themselves  in  power — not  by  the  popular  choice ,  but  by 
“  forcible  usurpation — and  it  was  not  until  this  change  that 
“  there  was  any  serious  thought  or  talk  in  the  United  States  of 
“annexing  the  Hawaiian  Islands.” 

No  political  party,  no  Senator,  nor  Representative  has  a 
right  to  indirectly  invite  taxation  upon  our  own  people  by 
forever  relinquishing  needed  revenue — in  the  pursuit  of  a  new 
colonial  “Annexation”  policy,  nor  give  away  every  year 
$8,000,000  of  the  revenues  of  the  government  !  In  view  of 
the  many  objections  which  lie  to  this  “  annexation  ”  scheme, 
the  mere  unsupported  statement  that  annexation  is  the  sequel 
or  natural  consequence  of  our  past  policy,  does  not  meet  the 
case  where  there  is  no  pretense  that  the  independence  of  the 
Islands  cannot  be  maintained  without  annexation.  With  the 
internal  iactional  troubles  in  Hawaii  we  have  no  concern  and 
may  not  interfere  !  We  owe  this  Hawaiian  sugar  oligarchy 
neither  sympathy  nor  support.  It  came  into  power  through 
duplicity,  deception  and  fraud,  under  the  dishonorable  use 
made  of  our  flag,  and  it  is  maintained  by  disfranchising  the 
people  !  If  it  can  maintain  itself,  well  and  good  ;  if  it  can¬ 
not,  let  the  oligarchy  surrender  the  power  it  usurped  to  the 
people  of  Hawaii,  but  to  ask  the  United  States  to  “  annex  ”  the 
Islands  with  a  debt  of  over  $4,000,000,  with  thousands  of 
“contract”  laborers  and  hundreds  of  lepers  and  give  up 


9 


annually  $8, 000,000  or  more  of  needed  revenue  and  burden 
ourselves  forever  after  to  support  sugar  planters  2,100  miles 
away,  is  little  too  much  of  a  tax  on  the  patience  and  liberality 
of  the  American  people  !  It  may  be  that  the  country  can  be 
made  to  shoulder  and  carry  one  more  “  Trust,”  and  a  foreign 
one  at  that,  but  there  are  many  who  doubt  it  !  There  is  a 
powerful  “  annexation  ’  ’  leverage  in  the  $66,000,000  already 
wrung  from  our  taxpayers.  There  is  a  great  deal  more  in  the 
anticipated  benefits  which  would  arise  under  “  annexation  ”  accom¬ 
plished  l 

We  have,  and  it  has  been  our  policy  to  have,  a  coterminous , 
compact  territory.  There  is  not  only  strength  in  it  but 
economy.  We  have  upward  of  75,000,000  population  in  45 
States  with  a  million  of  voters  in  Ohio  and  more  in  other 
States — nations  in  themselves — all  the  territory  and  all  the 
people  with  our  varied  and  troublesome  interests  that  it  is 
prudent  and  safe  to  attempt  to  control  under  a  republican 
form  of  government  that  is  as  yet  little  more  than  an  experi¬ 
ment.  Our  commerce  and  our  coasts  have  been  in  greater 
danger  than  they  ever  will  be  again,  unless  we  sacrifice  a 
timely  expenditure  of  money  for  coast  defense  and  dry  docks. 
Why  aggravate  present  conditions — that  need  money  at  home, 
by  annexing  Islands  over  2,000  miles  away  that  will  then  need 
defense  and  thus  increase  the  burdens  of  taxation  in  order  to 
exploit  a  new  political  policy  to  meet  the  cupidity  and 
avarice  of  selfish  foreign  and  domestic  interests  and  the 
demands  of  ambition,  or  perhaps  pay  a  political  obligation  ! 

There  remains  one  point,  not  touched  upon.  It  is  made  by 
Senator  Morgan  whose  relatives  in  Honolulu  are  doubtless 
ardent  “  annexationists.”  The  Senator — writing  from  Hon¬ 
olulu  under  date  of  October  1,  is  reported  as  saying  that — “  The 
“  rapid  settlement  of  these  islands  by  some  foreign  nation  is 
“  a  necessary  result  of  the  conditions,  in  this  period  of 
“  activity  in  the  movements  of  population,  and,  left  to  its 
“  unaided  strength,  the  control  of  that  immigration  is  beyond 
“  the  power  of  any  local  government  of  Hawaii,  whatever 
**  may  be  its  form.  Hawaii  is  thus  forced  by  an  overpowering 
“  necessity  to  seek  a  foreign  alliance  with  some  monarchy, 
“  01  annexation  to  the  United  States,  in  order  to  control  this 
“  question  of  immigration.” 

Having  existed  under  a  constitutional  monarchy  for  nearly 
half  a  century,  we  are  unable  to  discover  who  but  the  con¬ 
spirators  of  1893  have  made  a  foreign  alliance  necessary  ! 
American  immigration  will  continue  to  balance  that  of  the 
English  and  German.  Then  there  is  nothing  left  but 
“  contract  ”  labor  immigration  that  is  invited  into  the  Islands 


by  the  cupidity  of  the  Hawaiian  “  Sugar  Trust.”  Neither  the 
Japanese,  the  Chinese  nor  the  Portuguese  come  in — to  any  ex¬ 
tent,  save  through  legislative  appropriations.  They  have  nearly 
all  come  that  way.  If  there  is  any  evil  in  that,  the  remedy 
is  in  the  hands  of  those  who  extend  the  invitation  and  even  make 
treaties  to  that  end.  The  Senator  frankly  concedes  this.  He 
says — “This  policy  of  encouraging  Asiatic  immigration  was 
“  instituted  in  the  reign  of  Kalakaua,  through  the  importunity 
“  of  capitalists  and  enterprising  men,  who  discovered  that 
“great  wealth  could  be  speedily  acquired  by  the  cultivation 
“  of  sugar  and  rice.” 

“ANNEXATION”  THREATENS  OUR  BEET-SUGAR 
INDUSTRY. 

If  the  scheme  of  annexing  the  Hawaiian  Islands  succeeds,  ' 
it  will  seriously  threaten  our  domestic  beet-sugar  industry, 
which  has  finally  secured  a  promising  start  in  the  United 
States.  The  Hawaiian  “Sugar  Trust”  composed  of  individ¬ 
uals  and  corporations  have  many  advantages  over  our  indus¬ 
try  ;  they  got  government  lands  and  lands  from  the  natives 
in  Hawaii  for  a  song  and  Crown  lands  equally  cheap  on  long 
(30-year)  leases.  2d:  They  have  “contract”  and  coolie 
labor,  and  the  fertility  of  their  soil  and  the  climate  for  sugar 
production  enables  them  to  get  two,  three  and  even  five 
times  as  much  sugar  per  acre  as  can  be  produced  in  the 
United  States.  These  advantages  are  too  great  for  our 
farmers  and  manufacturers  to  overcome  on  anywhere  near  equal 
terms.  In  spite  of  this  well-known  fact  we  find  the  last  Trans- 
Mississippi  Congress,  held  at  Denver  in  1897,  passing  a  resolu¬ 
tion  in  favor  of  annexation  !  How  our  farmers  were  brought  to 
such  a  resolution  is  explained  by  the  following  clipping  from  a 
leading  Western  paper  : 

“Mr.  Lorrin  Thurston,  envoy  extraordinary  of  Hawaiian 
“  Island  land  speculators  and  sugar  planters,  turned  up  in  the 
“Trans-Mississippi  Congress  at  Salt  Lake  to  advocate  annexa- 
“  tion .” 

Prof.  Maxwell,  as  director  of  the  experiment  station  of  the 
Hawaiian  Sugar  Planters’  Association,  stated  the  average  yield 
of  sugar  per  acre  in  the  Hawaiian  Islands  in  i894-’5  to  be 
6,472  pounds  or  about  3^  tons.  This  is  more  than  double 
the  yield  in  the  United  States,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that 
under  more  favorable  and  less  slovenly  methods  than  those 
pursued  in  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  the  average  yield  there 
would  reach  at  least  5  tons  per  acre.  We  base  this  upon  a 
statement  made  by  the  Hawaiian  Commercial  Journal  of  April 
21,  1896,  which  gave  the  yield  of  two  large  fields  of  the  Ewa 


plantation  at  9  tons  to  the  acre.  And  in  the  Hawaiian 
Planters’  Monthly  of  December,  1894,  it  was  stated  that  the 
estimate  of  yield  cf  the  Dillingham  plantation,  was  6  tons  per 
acre.  Mr.  Z.  K.  Pangborn,  of  New  Jersey,  who  was  in  Hawaii 
during  the  entire  summer  of  1896,  says  in  the  New  York  Sun 
of  January  3,  1897,  of  Hawaiian  sugar  lands  : 

‘‘The  lands  where  sugar  cane  can  be  raised  are  the  most 
“  productive  of  any  in  the  world,  an  acre  of  good  sugar  land 
“  in  Hawaii  yielding  twice,  or  more  than  twice,  as  much  per 
“acre  as  any  lands  in  Louisiana  or  Cuba.’’ 

Very  little  doubt  therefore  can  be  entertained  as  to  the 
advantage  which  Hawaiian  sugar-planters  possess  over  our 
beet  and  cane  sugar  producers. 

“Annexation  ”  concerns  our  domestic  beet  sugar  industry 
in  another  way.  In  fact  our  industry  to-day  is  in  danger — 
because  of  the  “reciprocity”  treaty  with  Hawaii,  and  it  is 
likewise  threatened  with  more  “reciprocity”  with  the  West 
India  Islands.  England  refuses  to  assist  her  sugar  colonies 
with  a  bounty  and  wants  the  United  States  to  support  them. 
Our  domestic  sugar  industry  is  also  endangered  because  of 
the  power  and  probable  disposition  of  the  New  York  “  Sugar 
Trust,” — and  foreigners  acting  in  competition ,  to  crush  the  life 
out  of  our  beet-raisers  and  sugar-producers.  The  New  York 
“Trust”  forces  its  (foreign)  product  from  the  Eastern  sea¬ 
board  well  up  to  and  perhaps  even  beyond  the  Missouri  River, 
where  it  meets  the  200tOOO-ton  Hawaiian  product  coming  in  from 
San  Francisco !  Thus  our  domestic  product  is  in  a  position 
to  be  ground  to  powder  between  the  upper  and  nether  mill¬ 
stones  of  two  gigantic  “Trusts”!  As  sugar  in  Hawaii  is 
produced  by  “  cheap  labor  ”  and  the  output  per  acre  double 
our  own,  and  the  freight  rates  very  low  from  Honolulu  to 
Missouri  River  points,  and  the  total  product  enormous  and 
increasing,  it  enters  the  only  (local)  markets  on  which  the 
producers  of  domestic  sugar  can  safely  rely.  It  can  be 
laid  down  cheaper  than  domestic  sugar  can  be  produced  at  a 
fair  profit.  Already  arrangements  appear  to  be  on  foot 
whereby  a  larger  proportion  of  the  Hawaiian  product  is  to 
come  in  at  San  Francisco  than  heretofore.  We  note,  in  this 
connection,  a  dispatch  to  the  Washington  Post — 

“TO  REFINE  HAWAIIAN  SUGAR  — 

SENATOR  PERKINS’  NEW  SCHEME  HAS  SOMETHING  IN 
VIEW  BESIDES  BEETS. 

“San  Francisco,  Cal.,  Aug.  24  — Beet  sugar  will  not  be  the 
“  only  product  of  the  Starr  Mill  at  Crockett,  when  it  starts  up 
“about  January  1,  next.  The  machinery  will  permit  of  the 


“  refining  of  cane  sugar  as  well,  and  the  prospects  are  that  it 
“  will  take  considerable  of  the  Hawaiian  crop.” 

Another  dispatch  says — 

“It  is  stated  that  the  new  California  beet-sugar  and  refin- 
“  ing  company  is  to  erect  a  factory  at  Crockett,  Contra 
“Costa  County,  Cal.,  and  that  it  will  also  convert  into  a 
“sugar  factory  the  Union  stock  yards  plant  at  Rodeo,  Cal., 
“which  originally  cost  one  million  dollars,  but  which  has 
“  been  standing  idle  for  five  years.  The  Crockett  plant  is  to 
“  be  adapted  to  refining  Hawaiian  cane  sugar  as  well  as  the 
“  manufacture  of  beet  sugar.  The  company  hopes  to  handle 
“  considerable  Hawaiian  sugar,  when  the  contract  between  the 
“Island  planters  and  the  sugar  trust  expires  in  December.” 

Another  San  Francisco  dispatch,  Nov.  u,  says — 

“  The  contract  of  the  Hawaiian  planters  with  the  Western 
“  Sugar  Refinery  will  expire  December  31,  1897.  It  will  con- 
“  tinue  that  portion  of  the  crop,  say  from  40,000  to  50,000 
“  tons,  which  Claus  Spreckels  can  control.  Of  the  remainder 
“of  225,000  tons,  150,000  tons  will  be  placed  on  the  market 
“by  the  California  Beet  Sugar  and  Refining  Company.” 

These  interests  in  San  Francisco  may  favor  “  annexation,” 
but  they  are  selfish  and  local.  Notwithstanding  our  efforts  to 
advance  and  develop  the  beet-sugar  industry  at  home,  the 
above  dispatches  would  seem  to  indicate  that  certain  Senators 
on  the  Pacific  Slope — to  which  section  the  home  industry  is 
very  important,  may  be  ready  to  lend  the  Hawaiian  “  Trust  ” 
aid  and  comfort.  How  far  this  “business”  venture  may 
affect  votes,  remains  to  be  seen. 

We  wish  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  when  the  Hawaiian 
treaty  of  1875  was  originally  entered  into,  something  was  said 
about  its  effect  on  our  American  sugar  producers,  but  this  was 
put  aside  by  a  statement  that  the  Hawaiian  sugar  tonnage 
was  too  infinitesimal  to  warrant  any  fears.  But  it  has  devel¬ 
oped  from  30,000,000  of  pounds  in  1887  to  over  400,000,000 
of  pounds  in  1896. 

In  the  discussion  in  the  Senate  over  that  “free”  sugar 
treaty  the  friends  of  the  Hawaiian  “Trust”  ignored  the 
effect  which  the  “free”  sugar  treaty  was  bound  to  have  on 
our  home  sugar  industry,  but  it  was  conceded  by  Senators 
who  favored  the  job  that  if  it  could  be  shown  that  it  would 
operate  injuriously,  the  treaty  should  not  be  ratified.  Senator 
Mitchell  of  Oregon  frankly  admitted,  that  if  it  were  true  that 
our  domestic  sugar  industry  was  to  be  stricken  down  by  the 
treaty,  or  paralyzed,  then  it  would  have  a  right  to  be  heard. 
It  would  have  a  right,  he  said — “  to  protest  against  any  action 
“on  the  part  of  this  government,  the  effect  of  which  would 


1 3 


“  be  to  strike  down  or  seriously  impair  any  legitimate  industry 
“whether  it  be  the  production  of  sugar  or  any  other;  and  I 
“  take  it  that  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  would  be  slow 
“  to  give  its  sanction  to  any  measure  if  it  were  apparent  that 
“such  would  be  the  effect.” 

Time  has  made  out  the  case  against  these  Hawaiian  sugar 
planters  and  our  domestic  industry  calls  for  judgment !  Having 
gotten  out  of  our  taxpayers  $66,000,000  by  remission  of  duty 
on  rice  and  sugar  since  1875,  we  are  asked  to  extend 
$8,000,000  per  annum  more  of  benefit  through  “  annexation.” 
Will  this  blood-sucking  Hawaiian  “  Sugar  Trust  ”  never  let 
go  of  the  anatomy  of  our  taxpayers?  Must  we  sit  idly  by  and 
see  this  “  annexation  ”  scheme  go  through  in  order  that  a  new 
foreign  policy  may  be  developed  ! 

As  to  the  direct  effect  which  Hawaiian  “annexation” 
would  have  on  our  domestic  beet-sugar  industry,  the  Omaha 
Bee  is  entirely  correct.  It  says — 

“  At  a  moderate  rate  of  freight  Hawaiian  sugar  will  easily 
“  reach  our  markets  as  far  east  as  the  Missouri  River,  covering 
“  the  very  tract  of  territory  in  this  country  which  is  best 
“  adapted  for  the  production  of  beet  sugar  and  thus  taking  away 
“  from  that  section  the  possibility  of  marketing  its  product. 
“  In  view  of  this,  few  capitalists  would  risk  their  money  in 
“  the  domestic  industry.  The  development  of  the  beet-sugar 
“  industry  promises  to  give  the  farmers  of  the  Western  States 
“  invaluable  aid.  The  scheme  for  Hawaiian  annexation  is 
“  directly  opposed  to  their  interests.  Last  year  Hawaii 
“  produced  200,000  tons  of  sugar,  practically  all  of  which 
“  found  a  sale  in  the  United  States.  With  this  production 
“  trebled  under  annexation  she  would  send  us  600,000  tons 
“  per  year,  raised  by  cheap  coolie  labor.  The  beet-sugar 
“  industry  of  the  West  would  have  small  chance  of  growth  in 
“  face  of  this  tremendous  competition.” 

Another  leading  newspaper  says — “  Under  annexation, 
“  Hawaiian  sugar  will  pay  no  duty  whatever,  and  have  the 
“  protection  of  our  Tariff  in  their  favor  to  the  extent  of  about 
“  2c.  per  lb.,  there  is  left  a  margin  of  fully  ic.  per  lb.  discrim- 
“  ination  in  favor  of  the  Hawaiian  sugars,  as  against  an  equal 
“  production  of  beet  sugars  in  the  Western  sections  of  our 
“  country.  Therefore,  the  beet-sugar  industry  of  California 
“  and  of  all  States  west  of  the  Missouri  River  would  be 
“  directly  injured  by  the  annexation  of  these  Islands  to  the 
“  extent  of  ic.  per  lb.  or  more  upon  the  strictly  domestic 
“  industry.  It  is  easy  to  see  what  a  terrible  blow  this  will 
“  give  to  the  beet-sugar  industry  in  the  Western  sections  of 
“  our  country  and  with  what  caution  capitalists  will  be  in- 
“  duced  to  look  upon  the  development  of  this  great  industry.” 


The  farmers  of  Minnesota,  in  the  Dakotas,  of  Wisconsin, 
Nebraska,  Utah,  Colorado,  Iowa,  Michigan,  Texas,  New  York, 
Oregon,  Washington,  California  and  of  many  States  in  the 
Middle  West,  are  deeply  interested  in  the  progress  of  domestic 
sugar  production,  and  Senators  from  those  States  should  be 
instructed  if  necessary  by  their  legislatures  to  oppose  this 
Hawaiian  “job."  It  won’t  do  for  Senators  to  say — “  we  would 
“vote  to  abrogate  the  treaty,”  while  they  favor  “  annexation.” 
Annexation  means  “  free  sugar  ”  from  Hawaii  for  all  time  and 
is  even  worse  than  the  existing  treaty  / 

If  it  be  said  that  Congress  will  come  to  the  relief  of  our 
domestic  beet  sugar  industry  by  giving  it  a  small  bounty  to 
encourage  'he  investment  of  additional  capital  to  develop  it 
and  to  prevent  its  being  throttled  by  “  free  ”  Hawaiian  sugar, 
the  answer  is  that  all  that  is  in  the  air,  besides  the  bounty 
would  not  only  need  to  be  liberal  to  counteract  the  future 
effect  of  free  Hawaiian  sugar,  but  such  a  bounty  would  not  be 
stable ;  it  would  go  off  as  soon  as  the  Democrats  came  into 
power,  while  “ annexation  ”  would  be  a  fixed  fact  which  Con¬ 
gress  could  not  undo  /  So  that  in  whatever  light  the  matter  is 
viewed,  our  domestic  beet-sugar  industry  is  threatened  by 
“annexation,”  beset  as  it  already  is  by  demands  for  “reci¬ 
procity  ”  which,  if  acceded  to,  will  leave  domestic  producers 
with  little  more  than  the  (1.2)  rate  intended  to  be  granted  by 
the  Wilson  bill.  In  this  connection  we  wish  to  call  attention 
to  the  fact  that  notwithstanding  the  increase  of  duty  on  sugar 
by  the  Dingley  bill,  the  price  of  standard  granulated  in  New 
York  is  only  higher  than  it  was  one  year  ago  and  only 

rsC.  higher  in  New  Orleans,  and  prices  of  labor  and  of  factory 
materials  have  risen  considerably. 

Hawaiian  “  annexation  ”  flies  full  in  the  face  of  the  resolu¬ 
tion  adopted  at  the  last  National  Republican  Convention,  on 
this  subject — 

Resolved ,•“  We  condemn  the  present  (Dem.)  Administration 
“  for  not  keeping  faith  with  the  sugar  producers  of  this  coun- 
“  try.  The  Republican  party  favors  such  protection  as  will 
“  lead  to  the  production  on  American  soil  of  all  of  the  sugar 
“  which  the  American  people  use,  and  for  which  they  pay 
“other  countries  more  than  $100,000,000  annually.” 

“  Annexation  ”  is  necessarily  hostile  to  that  resolve,  and 
the  two  cannot  be  reconciled.  The  American  people  will  surely 
come  to  wonder  at  these  two  opposite  professions  and  some 
very  strong  reasons — outside  of  those  glittering  generalities  so 
frequently  indulged  in  and  called  “political  and  commercial 
considerations,”  will  need  to  be  advanced  to  convince  the 
American  people  that  something  is  not  “  rotten  in  Denmark.” 


r5 


In  fact  this  Hawaiian  matter  is  so  odious  that  it  reminds 
one  of  John  Randolph’s  faftious  remark — 

It  shines  and  stinks  and  stinks  and  shines, 

Like  a  rotten  mackerel  by  moonlight.” 

Let  us  protect  our  own  farmers  in  the  field  and  our  own  labor 
and  our  own  taxpayers  first.  It  will  be  time  enough  after  that, 
to  extend  our  protective  hand  over  2,100  miles  of  sea  to  aid 
another  “  Sugar  Trust.”  Suppose  there  is  American  capital 
in  Hawaii.  It  had  better  be  at  home  developing  our  own  sugar 
industry  !  It  becomes  foreign  capital  when  it  deserts  our 
shores  and  escapes  our  taxation  for  21  years.  Is  American 
capital  invested  abroad  in  foreign  competitive  industrial  pur¬ 
suits  to  receive  favor  at  the  expense  of  needed  revenue  and  of 
home  capital?  Is  that  to  be  the  policy  of  this  Government? 


